Letters

Affirmative action 'in best interest of educational
institutions'

As director of the Residential College (RC) at the University of
Michigan I welcome intellectual diversity on the part of our faculty
and students, and I encourage the expression of diverse views on
issues of public interest as well as on matters of s cholarly
analysis. In this context, I fully respect the right of my RC
colleague, Prof. Carl Cohen, to criticize the University's
affirmative action policies and to support the lawsuit recently filed
against the University's admission policies.

I wish to state unequivocally, however, that I do not share Prof.
Cohen's views on these matters and that these views do not reflect
the policy of the Residential College. I believe that affirmative
action-in the form of preferences in admission poli cies for groups
of students whose common group identity exposes them to
disadvantageous treatment-is both morally right and in the best
interest of educational institutions.

Admission to the University of Michigan should not simply be a
reward for the achievement of high grade point averages or high
standardized test scores. Instead, admission should be based on the
potential to make use of a university education to deve lop one's
talents and abilities to a high level of accomplishment by the time
of graduation and to enhance the well-being of society in one's
post-graduate career.

It is an undeniable fact that people of color in the United States
still face disadvantages in their opportunities and life chances
simply because of how others respond to their color. As a
consequence, it takes more talent and/or more resourcefulnes s on the
part of people of color to reach any given level of educational
achievement (as conventionally measured). In order to estimate the
true potential of students applying for admission to a college or
university, one must therefore give greater cred it than reflected in
grades and test scores to students of color-to recognize the extent
to which they have had to apply greater talent and resourcefulness to
overcome the obstacles they have confronted. Color-blind admission
policies, far from being fai r and just, actually discriminate
against students of color.

When color truly makes little difference to one's life chances in
this country, the University of Michigan should dispense with
affirmative action and adopt color-blind admission policies. Until
then, we should neither be surprised nor upset to disco ver that the
average grades and test scores of admitted students of color are
lower than the average for white students. Such observations do not
alter the reality that these students of color have just as much
potential for high levels of achievement an d are no less qualified
members of our University community than their white fellow students.

Thomas E. Weisskopf, director, Residential College

U-M almost had Nobelist

A recent article in The Michigan Daily recounted the University's
poor luck with Nobel Prizes. Reading it caused me to realize that I
may be the only current faculty member who knows of one of the most
tragic.

Several years ago, I was host for an American Psychological
Association reception at the International Congress of Psychology in
Edinburgh. During the reception, a Swedish psychologist told me that
he had prepared the citation to be presented to Geor ge Katona,
professor of psychology and of economics and research scientist,
Institute for Social Research.

George had been selected for the Nobel Prize in Economics.
However, he died (in August, I think) and Nobel Prizes are not
announced until the fall. Since Nobel Prizes are not awarded
posthumously, George (and the University of Michigan) missed the r
ecognition he richly deserved.

W.J. McKeachie, professor emeritus of psychology and research
scientist emeritus, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching

Editor's Note: Katona, who was the originator of regular surveys
of consumer attitudes, died in June 1981 at age 79.

Sandalow's comments clarified

An article in the November 26 Record, reporting on the
"Affirmative Action 101" panel discussion in which I participated,
contains two errors that I should correct. First, the article
attributes to me a prediction that the "Supreme Court will agree w
ith the argument that it is important for the educational environment
to have a diverse student body." Second, it attributes to me
personally the view that "there is a compelling social interest in
providing that kind of education." Neither statement ac curately
reflects what I said.

The Supreme Court has held that racial classifications are legally
permissible only if they "are necessary to achieve a compelling
governmental purpose." Thus far, the only purpose that the Supreme
Court has recognized as "compelling" is remedying d iscrimination by
the institution employing a racial classification. Since the
University of Michigan has not for many years, if ever, discriminated
against members of the minority groups that are the beneficiaries of
its current policies, that justificat ion is unavailable to it.

In the course of canvassing various other purposes that have been
advanced to justify racial and ethnic preferences in university
admissions, I said that there were two-and only two-that a majority
of the justices might be willing to regard as being o f "compelling
importance." The first, which persuaded at least one member of the
Court in the celebrated Bakke case, is that the justices might be
willing to defer to the judgment of faculties that racial and ethnic
diversity is important to the educatio nal mission of colleges and
universities. The second, which has been emphasized by President
Bollinger, is that a majority of the justices might regard continued
integration of important social institutions as being of compelling
importance. But to say that a majority of the justices might be
persuaded by these arguments is very different from predicting that
they will.

I did say that I was hopeful-and if pinned to the wall, would even
predict-that five or six members of the Court would conclude that
colleges and universities should be permitted to continue employing
minority preferences in their admissions. But my reason for that very
cautious prediction has little to do with the formal legal arguments.
The inability of colleges and universities to employ race as a factor
in deciding which applicants to admit would lead to a precipitous
decline in the admission o f African Americans and persons of
Hispanic ancestry to selective institutions of higher education. In
the end, I believe, a majority of the Justices are likely to conclude
that that result would be socially and politically intolerable.